Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • FUNCTION OF NATURAL LAW —“Natural Law provides measures and operations across

    FUNCTION OF NATURAL LAW

    —“Natural Law provides measures and operations across normative and formal institutions for decidability.”— Bill Joslin

    Natural law provides individuals, jurors, and jurists with a method of commensurability, and therefore a method of decidability, between differing personal, normative, and formal judgements of reciprocity, similar to how money provides commensurability in the form of prices, volume provides commensurability between shapes, and unitary distances commensurability between spaces, and natural numbers between quantities.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 09:33:00 UTC

  • THE DECIDABILITY OF NATURAL LAW 1) Man -> Biological Necessity – biological inst

    THE DECIDABILITY OF NATURAL LAW

    1) Man -> Biological Necessity – biological instinct for reciprocity (positive-purchase of options on future cooperation, neutral-exchange of cooperation, and negative-retaliatory at high expense, for violation of reciprocity.) This is ‘objective morality: natural law.

    2) Normative Institutions -> man evolves normative institutions that we call ‘morals’. These morals vary from group to group because each group constructs various ‘contracts’ (habits) that we call norms, on top of objective morality. These habits attempt to construct a market of sorts suitable for the solution of certain cultural, demographic, and geographic problems. (marriage and inheritance habits being the easiest examples to study). Property rights evolved in concert with (a) division of labor and development of tools, built capital and territorial property, (b) inheritance of those assets, and (c) tribal, clan, village, extended family, family, and absolute nuclear family structures. ( Private property increases with class (independence).)

    3) Formal Institutions -> the formal standardization (think of property rights registered in law as a standardization of weights and measures that facilitate the ‘fit’ of cooperation and the means of dispute resolution upon the failure of cooperation.

    4) Logical Decidability -> the method of commensurability by reduction to natural law, when formal law fails, or normative morality fails, because of differences in local contractual assumptions. In other words, natural law provides a means of commensurability across normative and formal institutional contracts, just as the natural common law provides a standard of decidability between private contracts.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 09:15:00 UTC

  • Myth, Ritual and Maturity, vs Supernatural, Ritual, and Infantilization

    WHY IS RELIGION – MEANING MYTH AND RITUAL – NECESSARY? —“Why is mythology and ritual necessary?”—Doug Decidability, opportunity costs and transaction costs. —“??????”—Doug We coordinate our actions a little bit by clear deliberate choices. But mostly we cooperate by many thousands of tie-breakers that we default to loose theories of the ‘good’: narratives. In other words, religions provide means by which, in those many thousands of choices, where no choice is preferable to us, to prefer the choice that contributes to the advancement of the commons. Otherwise like Bouridan’s Ass we must find some method of choosing. This insight is profoundly important. Think of religions as a wishing well into which we toss the spare change of choice. But these choices reflect a group evolutionary strategy. And these strategies are not equal. THE MANY SMALL DEFEAT THE FEW GRAND. THE PURPOSE OF MYTH AND RITUAL IS THE COORDINATION OF DECIDABILITY THE PURPOSE OF RELIGION IS INFANTILIZATION MYTH, RITUAL, NATURAL LAW: MATURATION –VS– RELIGION, RITUAL, SUPERNATURAL LAW: INFANTILIZATION

  • Myth, Ritual and Maturity, vs Supernatural, Ritual, and Infantilization

    WHY IS RELIGION – MEANING MYTH AND RITUAL – NECESSARY? —“Why is mythology and ritual necessary?”—Doug Decidability, opportunity costs and transaction costs. —“??????”—Doug We coordinate our actions a little bit by clear deliberate choices. But mostly we cooperate by many thousands of tie-breakers that we default to loose theories of the ‘good’: narratives. In other words, religions provide means by which, in those many thousands of choices, where no choice is preferable to us, to prefer the choice that contributes to the advancement of the commons. Otherwise like Bouridan’s Ass we must find some method of choosing. This insight is profoundly important. Think of religions as a wishing well into which we toss the spare change of choice. But these choices reflect a group evolutionary strategy. And these strategies are not equal. THE MANY SMALL DEFEAT THE FEW GRAND. THE PURPOSE OF MYTH AND RITUAL IS THE COORDINATION OF DECIDABILITY THE PURPOSE OF RELIGION IS INFANTILIZATION MYTH, RITUAL, NATURAL LAW: MATURATION –VS– RELIGION, RITUAL, SUPERNATURAL LAW: INFANTILIZATION

  • Religion may be necessary, but not lies.

    Nov 15, 2016 10:40am Religion is a NECESSARY institution for the provision of decidability by narrative, which is the loosest theoretical structure we currently know how to construct. The question is whether we claim religious narratives are true(history), are myths(parables), or are supernatural(falsehoods). History and Myths are enough without resorting to lies.

  • Religion may be necessary, but not lies.

    Nov 15, 2016 10:40am Religion is a NECESSARY institution for the provision of decidability by narrative, which is the loosest theoretical structure we currently know how to construct. The question is whether we claim religious narratives are true(history), are myths(parables), or are supernatural(falsehoods). History and Myths are enough without resorting to lies.

  • Aphorism: Utility of Decidability

    Nov 18, 2016 7:50am Many methods of decidability are useful. The question is whether or not they are useful for self-and-other deception.

  • Aphorism: Utility of Decidability

    Nov 18, 2016 7:50am Many methods of decidability are useful. The question is whether or not they are useful for self-and-other deception.

  • WE ARE ALL WORKING ON THE SAME PROBLEM (from elsewhere, for NNT) – We are all ma

    WE ARE ALL WORKING ON THE SAME PROBLEM

    (from elsewhere, for NNT)

    – We are all making the same point, I’m just providing the full implications – the full framework. I don’t have the metric. I am not sure we have the means of collecting enough data to discover it.

    – Taleb’s making the same point, he just looking for the metric rather than the framework. But his work so far is close enough: the cost of discovering the point of demarcation is so expensive that it cancels the value of the opportunity, and requires then that we demand warranty of the distributor of the information.

    – Wolfram’s making the same point, he just hasn’t put it into the full context.

    – Mantelbrot was making the same point, he just couldn’t generalize it. Yes, there exist sets of operations in all systems of operations that survive (prevent entropy).

    – Minsky makes the same point but he doesn’t understand the implications.Yes, programming (tests of existential possibility) is a new method of human thought, just as were calculus, geometry, algebra, and accounting.

    – Mises was making the same point but he didn’t understand the model or context. Instead he tried to create a pseudoscience by conflating logic and science.

    – Poincare was making the same point but couldn’t generalize it – he just knew it was ‘wrong’.

    – Brouwer was making the same point, it’s just not a strong criticism of ordinary mathematics which is already operationally constrained. It’s Brouwer that did most of the heavy lifting, even if he could not, correct Cantor’s re-platonism of mathematics.

    – Bridgman was making the same point, and he was reasonably successful, but didn’t understand the enormity of it. He will seem prescient once we discover the basic operations of the natural universe.

    THE ORIGIN OF SCIENCE IS THE COMMON LAW

    The history of western reason, from the early indo europeans, to Aristotle’s invention of reason, to bacon’s invention of empiricism, to Popper and Hayek’s incomplete test of ‘existential possibility’, is derived from the study of the common, germanic, european, indo-european, law of sovereign men. Science is a byproduct of the common law.

    The philosophers of the 20th century failed to solve the problem of defining science as a set of warranties of due diligence for each dimension of reality, against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda and deceit.

    The 20th century, as Hayek posited, will be remembered in history, as the second attempt to christianize the west: this time by pseudoscience, pseudorationism, mathematical platonism, and outright deceit.

    And the list of all of us above is but part of the many who have intuited but until now, failed, to defeat the conquest of our civilization by pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, mathematical platonism, propaganda and deceit.

    For reasons that are obvious in retrospect, it is those of us who have tried to construct models in software that have come to our various conclusions.

    Tests of Constant Relations:

    1) Categorical Consistency (identity consistency)

    2) Internal Consistency (logical consistency)

    3) Empirical Consistency (external correspondence)

    4) Existential Consistency (operational definitions)

    5) Cooperative Consistency (voluntary exchanges)

    6) Scope Consistency (Parsimony, Limits, and Full Accounting)

    If we perform due diligence in these six dimensions, and we enforce involuntary warranty on financial, economic, political speech, then it will be very hard to engage in, publish, or propagandize falsehoods by which we rely on error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudo rationalism, mathematical platonism, pseudoscience, propaganda and deceit.

    And, without stretching our imaginations, it is likely that the consequences of the suppression of the century of pseudoscience, will yield as great a benefit to mankind as the suppression of mysticism by empiricism, that rescued the west from its dark age.

    I hope this provokes a bit of thought.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-26 14:12:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere, for NNT) – We are all making the same point, I’m just providing

    (from elsewhere, for NNT)

    – We are all making the same point, I’m just providing the full implications – the full framework. I don’t have the metric. I am not sure we have the means of collecting enough data to discover it.

    – Taleb’s making the same point, he just looking for the metric rather than the framework. But his work so far is close enough: the cost of discovering the point of demarcation is so expensive that it cancels the value of the opportunity, and requires then that we demand warranty of the distributor of the information.

    – Wolfram’s making the same point, he just hasn’t put it into the full context.

    – Mantelbrot was making the same point, he just couldn’t generalize it. Yes, there exist sets of operations in all systems of operations that survive (prevent entropy).

    – Minsky makes the same point but he doesn’t understand the implications.Yes, programming (tests of existential possibility) is a new method of human thought, just as were calculus, geometry, algebra, and accounting.

    – Mises was making the same point but he didn’t understand the model or context. Instead he tried to create a pseudoscience by conflating logic and science.

    – Poincare was making the same point but couldn’t generalize it – he just knew it was ‘wrong’.

    – Brouwer was making the same point, it’s just not a strong criticism of ordinary mathematics which is already operationally constrained. It’s Brouwer that did most of the heavy lifting, even if he could not, correct Cantor’s re-platonism of mathematics.

    – Bridgman was making the same point, and he was reasonably successful, but didn’t understand the enormity of it. He will seem prescient once we discover the basic operations of the natural universe.

    THE ORIGIN OF SCIENCE IS THE COMMON LAW

    The history of western reason, from the early indo europeans, to Aristotle’s invention of reason, to bacon’s invention of empiricism, to Popper and Hayek’s incomplete test of ‘existential possibility’, is derived from the study of the common, germanic, european, indo-european, law of sovereign men. Science is a byproduct of the common law.

    The philosophers of the 20th century failed to solve the problem of defining science as a set of warranties of due diligence for each dimension of reality, against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda and deceit.

    The 20th century, as Hayek posited, will be remembered in history, as the second attempt to christianize the west: this time by pseudoscience, pseudorationism, mathematical platonism, and outright deceit.

    And the list of all of us above is but part of the many who have intuited but until now, failed, to defeat the conquest of our civilization by pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, mathematical platonism, propaganda and deceit.

    For reasons that are obvious in retrospect, it is those of us who have tried to construct models in software that have come to our various conclusions.

    Tests of Constant Relations:

    1) Categorical Consistency (identity consistency)

    2) Internal Consistency (logical consistency)

    3) Empirical Consistency (external correspondence)

    4) Existential Consistency (operational definitions)

    5) Cooperative Consistency (voluntary exchanges)

    6) Scope Consistency (Parsimony, Limits, and Full Accounting)

    If we perform due diligence in these six dimensions, and we enforce involuntary warranty on financial, economic, political speech, then it will be very hard to engage in, publish, or propagandize falsehoods by which we rely on error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudo rationalism, mathematical platonism, pseudoscience, propaganda and deceit.

    And, without stretching our imaginations, it is likely that the consequences of the suppression of the century of pseudoscience, will yield as great a benefit to mankind as the suppression of mysticism by empiricism, that rescued the west from its dark age.

    I hope this provokes a bit of thought.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-26 14:12:00 UTC